crazymf

Well, I was born in Canada. My wife was born in Canada. All our parents were born in Canada. Our children were born in Canada. We've lived in Canada all our lives. I guess I don't stand a chance of being GG.

May I use that one?

It also is a contingency plan if Quebec ever goes.

I am grown up, with a sense of humor. If I'd have known I could get under your skin so easily, I might have started sooner. Go back and simply laugh at my statement. That's the appropriate response. If you can't, your loss. Btw. Getting mad is a definite redneck response. You're getting very close now...hehe.

Ordinarily I'd take exception to that. However, you made the statement and can't take it back so this is just sour grapes. Keep it up and we may make you an honorary redneck Albertan.

I KNEW IT!!!!!!! You had some redneck in you after all! Atta boy!! Good for you. We'll get you straightened out one day, there is hope.

Right, but the reality is, contray to what this bogus poll says, separation isn't really on the radar screen here. The Separation Party of Alberta didn't even get 5,000 votes in the last election. I think the vast majority of Albertans consider themselves Canadians first and foremost. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course. That's the way it's been for our lifetimes, Canadian. I suspect an emerging contradiction here as we talk about staunch conservative rednecks thinking liberal thoughts such as separatism. My head is getting hot as we speak.....overload....

So you conced the statistical validity of this poll is on par with something from the pages of Cosmo? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not concede, but merely agree. Talk is cheap. We can all talk separation, but actually doing it is a different ball game.

Headlines is what politics is all about. It puts the idea into peoples heads and makes the idea acceptable. What is it, say a lie 100 times and it becomes truth? Something like that.

Last time I checked, democracy was over when you cast your vote for the most part. Sort of like firing a gun, it's rare that you can take a bullet back after it's left the barrel. Analogy is a stretch I know, but you get my meaning I hope. It's the new American way of waging 'liberation' campaigns. If you declare war, you must win and the other side must capitulate, at least to the public eyes. This way they can quit whenever they feel like it and leave. I think the best way to win the Iraq war is to get a bunch of citizens of the western world to emigrate there, open some McDonalds restaurants and give them cholesteral, whisky, peeler bars and drag racing, etc. Get their minds off that suicide bomb crap. They'll go for it once they start having fun.

It's easy to call any war a quagmire as war is dirty. It never goes as planned. Calling the Iraq war a quagmire and comparing it to Vietnem is simplistic and very shortsighted. There are arguments for every side of this debate and spin on every angle. Think it's a mess? You're right. Think some progress is happening? You're right too. I'm not there and can't tell you what's happening. No one person who is actually there can tell you that either. We must have faith in whoever is leading the war that the reason was valid to go there. Who are all of us to second guess a national leader when we are not privy to the information he uses to base his decisions. I refrained from using GB's name because it could very well be a liberal democrat who digs this war down even more in the next few years. If the USA gets a gutless president like Bill Clinton the next term around, the war will most likely get 10 times messier than it is now as he tries to do the 'politically correct' moves to get out of it. If the dems get in they'll probably appoint someone like Michael Moore as defence secretary. The poop will be hitting the fan then.

Yeah, you can twist up what I said to suit yourself, but I'm not in particular disagreement to you, just that the issue needs addressed in some form.

Well, I can tell you that I see it every single time I ride my bike into Edmonton. Otherwise I wouldn't have started this post. Cell phone drivers are driving severely impaired and to not watch for them and avoid they're continual mistakes would be death.

I don't need to curl my hair in my vanity mirror while I'm driving. I may not drink coffee while driving. Other things that distract drivers should be dealt with as you say under the present laws. To me the difference is that practically everyone uses a cell phone so it should be looked at differently to all the other distractions and possibly banned specifically. Agreed. However, a law would do the enforcing by itself for a portion, perhaps the major portion of the public, with no further manpower or resources needed. You know, prevention?

Or is it a situation where the end justifies the means? Before 911, I didn't see much reason for a military other than to help citizens flooded out in Winnipeg or as a national labor pool. It would be a great world indeed if military power was merely needed for ornamental duty. I think the world took a giant step backward the last couple of years. Thank your extremist muslim buddies for that. Or could be some Republican/CIA conspiracy to keep the US economy spurred or something like that. Who knows?

...after someone very recently blew up a train with a bomb. I wasn't there and I'm assuming you weren't there so the assumptions we both glean from the situation can't really be argued much past our opinion on the matter. If we both knew the exact details and state of mind of all involved, perhaps both of us might change our opinions. If the fellow had been strapped to a bomb, the cops would have acted properly. I'm fairly confident the entire police force in Britain isn't corrupt enough to frivilously go around shooting the citizens at will so I'm confident that the situation warranted the force given their rule of engagement, so to speak. If the fellow had been a bomber and set it off when the police merely wounded him and killed everyone involved, then it's entirely possible this situation might happen again after that. The message to people is clear. Don't be running away from police in the subway in Britain these days or else.

So we can re-do this debate and take 'gay' out? Same sex marriage without the homosexual thing. So same sex marriage is not about being gay, but the gay people merely benefit? How can two people 'love, honor and cherish, til death do us part', merely for tax purposes? I have to think about it a bit more.

We may need laws because people don't tend to self regulate themselves. I think the law could be installed for the same contextual reasoning as seat belt laws were installed. Or put another way.....I wouldn't hesitate to answer the phone, knowing full well the ramifications. I just wouldn't think it could happen to me. Just this once can't hurt. Enforcing the present laws merely pick needles from the haystack, whereas a law would blanket the situation plus give enforcers a specific reason for stopping a vehicle, even if they didn't demonstrate undue care and attention. I do not see a cell phone law banning them from moving vehicles a minus situation at all. There are only benefits, to the general public I mean.

I don't think you have to look further than the non-confidence vote to find underhanded dealings and veiled threats to stay in power. All high level politicians are crooked to one extent or another IMO. They are just the best at dodging, covering their behinds, and covering their tracks. The system of checks and balances is what needs to be monitored and rechecked.

I think the media is partly or maybe even wholly at fault for promoting cell phone use. The media tells everyone they can be day traders on the internet. The media and Microsoft tout office packages to keep your data flowing. The media makes all workers out to be executives who do business on the fly. People buy that crap and try to emanate the 'lifestyle'. I flew through O'Hare airport this spring and it was absolutely rediculous the amount of people walking with a cell phone stuck to their head. There were kids with play phone stuck on their little heads. People sitting with earbuds in having conversations with full hand gestures. They looked insane. The rest of the folks seemed to be hunkered in to their laptops. This age of communication helps us to communicate with everyone except the people in our general vicinity. I've had people at my business actually try to make me wait at my counter while serving them as they take a phone call. How rude. I just leave them standing there when they do that and they have to come to get me to finish up their transaction. All that stuff I can deal with. However, when someone drives in front of me, across my path or just down the street, oblivious to the surroundings, I have a major problem with it. All personal freedom issues aside, cell phones shouldn't be used in moving vehicles, period.

Hey! New twist on this one. I can't find a quote, but I heard on the news yesterday that a couple of guys, who are NOT gay, either got married or want to, to take advantage of the tax and other benefits that marriage offers. Not my thing, but what next???? More power to them I guess. I could see hetero women doing this in droves. Where does that leave things?

I don't for one minute think that Alberta can separate peacefully without Ottawa expressing their power on us and declaring Martial Law as Trudeau did in Quebec in 1970<>. That moment when our own military marched on us would prove once and for all where the hearts and minds of Albertans and the rest of Canada were. Bloodshed, a definite possibility. At that point, I would expect Uncle Sam to 'liberate' Alberta for us. Go from there.....

Well, that was my question. The party website mentions everything else but that in the guidelines. They seem to have all the answers to the present problems, but in reality make no gestures for more parties after the fact. That seems to be an eternal oppostion attitude with no contingency for actually being in power. Sparhawk, I'd move if I were you because there'll no doubt be an amphibious attack on Vancouver from the sea.

Hey, maybe you guys can answer this? The Alberta Separation party website advocates policy and so forth. What I don't see is after we separate, are there more parties allowed, or just them? That could be a problem. Theoretically speaking of course.

Except that 3 million people from Ontario could move here and overvote us again.